... convicting Rosty that he later made him the NUMBER 2 official in the whole Justice Department!

This administration will undoubtedly win the title for the most unaccountable bunch and the most "buck passing" obfuscaters of the truth to darken (and I mean DARKEN) the steps of the Whitehouse. They once had Bill Clinton to pass the buck to, but guess what? The American people are smarter than these fools think we are, and we do not accept their denials and lies anymore. Although Presidents Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Reagan ALL replaced the 93 U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of their terms, all but five of the U.S. attorneys they then appointed to their jobs served there 4-year terms under these presidents. None were fired for political reasons! However, these attorneys appointed by our current president were fired because they were not considered by Mr. Rove to be "loyal Bushies" even though the law required them to be apolitical in their roles as U.S. attorneys. It is an unprecedented move and needs to be fully investigated! What is this administration so afraid of? They are afraid of their corruption being "outed", that's what! Too bad for them that Americans and their representatives in Congress are so smart, eh?

“shooter242” wrote: When Clinton took office in 1993 he fired ALL the US attorneys. 93 in total. It was unprecedented,...

“Curious” wrote: Didn't Bush Fire (or Accept Resignations from) All US Attorneys in 2001?......And if so, then it would seem to be enough to use that as a simple comeback to anyone saying "But Clinton fired them all..."

To which “shoooter242” wrote: What an excellent question, a question of crystalline clarity, a question of pithy precision. I have looked for a citation of how many USAG's were replaced by Bush and can find nothing. Apparently Clinton's purge was unprecedented. What we do know for sure is that Bush kept on quite a few folks from the Clinton era.

The following is from the Washington Post:

Readers' complaints [about the Post’s coverage of the Bush attorney-firing story] sounded generally like this one...: "Regarding the front-page article 'Firings Had Genesis in White House,' I request that you look into why [reporters Dan] Eggen and [John] Solomon saw fit to avoid any mention of the firings of all U.S. attorneys by President Clinton. For the younger generation and people with short memories, the article would imply that such firings are a new thing."

Eggen, who covers the Justice Department, did note that fact in several but not all stories on the firings. He said, "Bush also got rid of all but one U.S. attorney in 2001, and in both of those cases it was at the beginning of a change in party power, which seems fairly obvious and routine. The issue here is doing a mass firing in the middle of a term, which leads to appearance problems and which is viewed by many as an intrusion on the independence of prosecutors. No one, including the Department of Justice, can cite a time in recent decades when it has happened before."

And I just love this: earlier comments shot down all of shooter242’s spin, so here’s all he’s left with:

I thought the left was supposed to be smart enough to distinguish between a request for resignation, and firing an entire class of the judiciary in one fell swoop. Guess not.

Hey, shooter242, I thought even a right-winger would be smart enough to realize that requesting the resignations of an entire group of people with the clear intention of accepting those resignations is merely a convoluted way of firing them. Guess not.

Mr. Conason, by all means, keep “using” us “very badly,” as shooter242 describes it.

And, lastly, an anonymous commenter wrote the following [my response in brackets]:

1) Bush never outed a CIA agent. That would be Richard Armitage. [Ever hear of a straw man? No one claimed Bush, personally, outed Plame. That would be Rove, Libby, and, yes, Armitage. But Armitage didn’t then lie about it, and he wasn’t part of the concerted effort to go after Wilson (motives make a big difference here). And, of course, Bush seems to have gone right along with the cover up, and also failed to follow through with his pledge to fire anyone discovered to be involved in the leak.]

2) Federal prosecutors are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president. If the president does not feel that they are adequately prosecuting his law enforcement priorities (in this case drugs and illegal immigration), he is entirely within his right to remove them. End of story. [Not really the end of the story at all. Just because a given action is LEGAL doesn’t make it RIGHT or undeserving of investigation and censure. Also, there is good indication that the reason for at least some of the firings wasn’t simply inadequate pursuit of "law enforcement priorities." And finally, there’s all of the lying that has gone on since this story began. Bush’s having the “right to remove them” isn’t the “end of story” by a long shot.]

It's always amazing to see the Germanic unquestioning dogstyle obedience of the remaining apologists for Bushit. Lies, all lies, nothing but lies, from day one; it's the republikan way. Get used to minority status, fascisti, 'cause payback's coming in 08. How many more soldiers will die for nothing before that comes to pass? 1,000? 1,200? It doesn't matter to the republikans. In fact, that'll mean fewer veterans to treat like used diapers when they come limping home, shells of their former selves. Bush's War is as dark a chapter as America has endured since the Civil War.

i can't spell POLITICAL!!!!!!!

I read most of the letters and I noticed nobody mentioned that the U.S. Attorney's

themselves thought their dismissals Polotical!!!!!!

I thought the left was supposed to be smart enough to distinguish between a request for resignation, and firing an entire class of the judiciary in one fell swoop. Guess not.